Qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe

rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklz
xcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe
rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
Examine the legality of the American
invasion to Iraq 2003

sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
Principles of International Law
Module Code: POLS03I02

hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklz
Mina Gerges Fathalla – ID. 103576
Lecturer: DR. Bassem Ahmed.
Research paper

xcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwe
rtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopa
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklz
2

Name: Mina Gerges Fathalla / ID: 103576 – Research Paper –

Principles of International Law - Module Code: POLS03I02 –
Coordinator and lecturer: DR. Bassem Ahmed.

Examine the legality of the American invasion to Iraq 2003

International law is a mixed bag of treaties, conventions and declarations, which can

determine the case or the salvation of certain clashes and conflicts. Under the rules of

international law, states should behave in addition to respect other states independence

and integrity. However, at the end should lead to international peace and security that is

the primary purpose of the UN charter, therefore the USA invasion to Iraq in 2003, was

not clearly justified. Nevertheless, it was adopt clearly under certain rules and regulations

to preserve international peace and security, also to prevent the horror of terrorism threat,

from reaching the USA boarders. However, the legality in this case was determined under

the band of self-defense, by way or another it was the concerns of George W. Bush war

on terrorism, after the shock of 11 September.

This anxiety is a matter of understanding and being resolute, in the situation of the

American invasion to Iraq 2003 besides the UN charter article 51. That argues about self-

defense and the use of force, although the United States thought about the threat of Iraq

and terrorism from reaching the boarder of their states, so the invasion proceeds or

military intervention was almost under this condition, while this issue is controversial.

Many theorists and specially US secretariat, were trying to authorize the Bush

administration in the invasion of Iraq, under resolution 1441 of the UN Security Council.

That argued about, the Iraqi threat of international peace and security. This resolution
3

passed in 8 November 2002, under name of “The United Nations, International Law and

the War in Iraq”. The Bush administration was using this resolution as an umbrella to

hide under from the rain of criticism and blames of other UN member states, and Kofi

Annan held that “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of

view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal.”()

On the other hand, the US administration had imposed the “Bush Doctrine”, to legalize the

invasion and the use of force, as a “preemptively” act to defend US boarders and nation. From

the imposed threat of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and prevent it from

reaching to any terrorist bases that actually may and aiming to use it against US. In a certain time

or place that could emerge suddenly and therefore the US has to defend itself from this horror

threat before it reaches the boarder.

Another act that, give room for the American invasion to Iraq at that certain time, is that

Bush has announced many times in his, meetings and UN negotiations that, 11 September crisis

was determined by a terrorist networks that, suspected to be in relation with Saddam Hussein

regime in Iraq. Moreover, these give US the right of self-defense, in a certain time but under the

authority of the UN Security Council rules and regulations of the use of force. While Bush

Doctrine came, to extend this meaning of self-defense by which it reflects the self-defense

importance of use of force before the, strike of the enemy occurs.

While on the other hand, US specialists did not find any weapons of mass destructions or terrorist

networks in Iraq, as it was frailer information from the CIA, but a new government had to

emerge, in Iraq to allow order and security in the region although to end Saddam’s regime.

How ever, the UN charter under article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against a state

integrity or independence. While I mentioned at the first of the paper, this issue is controversial.

Because the use of force is legalized for the US interests, ironically under some international law,
4

articles it illegalized this act. At the same time, US try to authorize it as possible under Resolution

1441 or article 51, of self-defense and imposing that Saddam’s regime has violated some UN

resolutions before, at period of 1991-gulf war when Saddam uses his forces against and to invade

Kuwait. Moreover, Saddam had opened the gate for the war to begin at first, when he held that

presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and his intentions to use it as possible if it could

reach Israel or US. This declaration of Saddam itself is a threat for the US allied states, which is

Israel, also is a threat for US and suspected Saddam as in relation with terrorists’ networks, in

Iraq that were behind the 11 Sept crisis. ()()

Therefore the American invasion to Iraq 2003, from many prospective it is legal, but

from others prospective is it illegal, because US did not follow UN rules and regulation of the use

of force, but the use of force almost legal for US to exercise.

According to the US congressional joint resolution “Authorization for Use of Military

Force against Iraq Resolution of 2002” - “U.S. House of Representatives Joint Resolution

114” (). This resolution legalize and authorize the use of US military force against Iraq

threat, because Saddam’s regime were suspected, to be aiding international terrorist

organizations or networks by mass destruction weapons, since 9/11 crisis and since Iraq

aggression act of Kuwait invasion.

Although the legality of the American invasion to Iraq in 2003, lays under some

aspects and reasons, with regard to the UN charter and article 2(4), that prohibit the use

of force against other state sovereignty or independent states. But Self defense context

according to article 51, it allows the use of force against any armed action, but US would

not wait till it get stroked by Iraqi mass destruction weapons or other terrorist

organization, that is allied with Saddam’s regime. Therefore, the Bush doctrine came up

with, an ideological meaning for the use of force under self-defense context, in action of

any threat to the national security and integrity of states, US as member of UN role is to
5

keep world peace and security. As long as Iraq violated international law - UN charter

article 2(4), when invading Kuwait 1990, so Iraq suspected to act as the same aggression

method, by attacking USA on the long run and threaten international peace in the region.

Moreover, according to this US use of force and legality to invade Iraq is clear, to be

recognized under Bush doctrine and the congressional joint resolution 114, which implies

all the actions taken to prohibit the threat of Iraq to the US boarders and to regulate peace

in the region by ending Saddam’s regime. ()

Article 2(4); implies that “All Members shall refrain in their international

relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political

independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the

United Nations.” which is known as “the Prohibition of Aggression”. ()

To recognize the article indicates that it prohibit the threat or the use of force against

states integrity, but US were threatened by terrorists net works that were in relation with

Saddam’s regime.

On the other hand, no terrorist organizations or weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq

after the invasion; US announced it was failed information from CIA. However,

information was so much important in this case. Nevertheless, Saddam open the gate for

the war and debate when he declared about weapons of mass destruction, therefore

Saddam’s regime was the reason to give the US a legal prospective or new ideology

under international law and UN. That is (Bush doctrine) to defend USA integrity and

nation, against Saddam’s threats and to launch war on terrorism before it reach US

boarders and use of force “preemptively”.()

Conceivably, the American invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was not legally

justified, under international law but evidence of Saddam’s totalitarian system and the
6

American idea of the war on terror. Enabled the US forces to exercise its power, to end

Saddam’s regime, after the undiscovered weapons of mass destruction or terrorism

networks, but Saddam was suspected, that he export terror to some organizations that

may, hit US on the long run. In addition to, submit freedom and democracy in the Middle

East region, and to free Iraqi people from this totalitarian system or Saddam’s regime.

“In the period before the invasion, the best justification for war was regime change”, on

the other hand the anarchic nature of the international system, gave US room for the

invasion. “The invasion of Iraq was not really a war; It was more like an exercise”, since

Bush himself described the invasion as “one of the swiftest advances in History”. ()

“Under the United Nations Charter paradigm for the use of force, unilateral preemptive

force without an imminent threat is clearly unlawful. But if the charter framework

No longer accurately reflects existing international law, then the Bush doctrine of

preemption may, in fact be lawful—even if it is politically unwise.”()

The invasion begun and was based upon, the intentions for detecting any weapons

of mass destruction or any terrorists network, while after it turned to failed policy that to

determine, any of mass destruction weapons nor terrorist networks, the invasion played

its role, in proving new concept which is to create a “Democratic Iraq” or government in

Iraq. On the other hand, the invasion issue cannot determine the legality or illegality of

the invasion, duo to the uncertainty and the anarchic nature of the international system. In

addition to, the invasion was legitimate under certain conditions; otherwise, Iraq would

not shape a threat to US security or neighboring states. If there were no threat from Iraq,

the invasion would not happen or took place, at the same time some theorist argue that
7

the invasion was illegal and unprovoked to UN before it began. Therefore the issue of US

invasion to Iraq 2003, legitimacy or authorized is a controversial matter. Because Bush

administration try to legalize it, however if it was not legal, but US as a member of UN,

its role to provide security and peace internationally and members have to act against any

threat, at the Same time Iraq shaped a threat for US.()

Bush tried to legalize the invasion under, UN resolution 1441 concerning to gain legal

authority to use "all necessary means," which is diplomatic code for going to war. In

addition, Bush intensions to justify the invasion under article 51 UN charter of self-

defense concept.

Eventually, the paper ends with a quotation or statement to terminate the legality of US

invasion to Iraq 2003, “the recognized right of a state to use force for purposes of self-

defense traditionally included the preemptive use of force, i.e., the use of force in

anticipation of an attack.” “Hugo Grotius, the father of international law, stated in the

seventeenth century that “it be lawful to kill him who is preparing to kill.” ()
8

Bibliography
Ackerman., D. M. (2003, April 11). CRS Report for Congress-International Law
and the Preemptive Use of aganist Iraq. Retrieved JAN 1, 2010, from
www.au.af.mi: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rs21314.pdf
Arend, A. C. (2003). International Law and the Preemptive Use of Military
Force. THE WASHINGTON QUARTERLY , pp. pp. 89–103.
BBC. (2004, September 16). Iraq war illegal, says Annan. Retrieved Jan 1,
2010, from news.bbc.co.uk: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3661134.stm
J.Schoenbaum, T. (2006). Introduction: Two Very Different Wars in Iraq. In T.
J.Schoenbaum, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THE PATH NOT TAKEN (pp. 1-13).
U.S: CAMBRIDGE.
Kaldor, M. (2006). The 'New War' in Iraq. In M. Kaldor, NEW & OLD WARS 2nd
Edition. (pp. 150,155-172). UK: Polity Press.
Malone, D. M. (2006). THE INTERNATIONAL STRUGGLE OVER IRAQ-Politics in
the UN Security Counsil 1980-2005. US: Oxford University.
Representatives-Senate, t. H. ( 2002 , October 11). Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - U.S. House of Representatives
Joint Resolution 114. Retrieved DEC 28, 2009, from leaderu.com:
http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/iraq_war.html
UN, U. N. (2009). CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS-CHAPTER I: PURPOSES
AND PRINCIPLES. Retrieved 1 1, 2010, from un.org:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml